Obradovich: Term limits aren't best prescription for reform

Sep. 10, 2013

Written by

Kathie Obradovich

Would you hire someone for an entry-level job if he informed you he had already decided on the date of his resignation? Would you want to spend time training someone who would likely be gone before she was prepared for a promotion?

That’s essentially what several of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate are asking voters to do. Sam Clovis, Joni Ernst and Matt Whitaker have all said they would voluntarily limit themselves to two terms if elected. During a Polk County GOP picnic last weekend, only David Young said he would not self-impose a limit that did not apply to other states’ senators.

Mark Jacobs, whose campaign is still exploratory, did not attend the event. Neither did Paul Lunde of Ames, who supports a constitutional amendment to limit terms.

The four candidates were responding to questions from WHO radio talk-show host Simon Conway, who indicated he had raised the issue with the candidates on his show. Clovis bragged that he was the first to pledge he would serve no more than two terms if elected. That is perhaps not much of a sacrifice, considering Clovis would be in his mid-70s after two terms.

Ernst didn’t seem as if she had given the question a lot of thought. She said she originally had agreed to a three-term limit, but quickly fell in line with the two-term pledge. “I said three, but then we said, you know, three — that’s 18 years. That does sound like a very long time,” she said. “So now I’m thinking probably two. Two and done.”

It seemed as if Ernst was shifting her position on the fly, perhaps trying to say what she thought Conway wanted to hear. She was also flustered when Conway asked what three things she would eliminate to cut the budget. She named the Department of Education, said the Internal Revenue Service should be gone or significantly decreased, and then couldn’t come up with a third. In the words of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, oops. Not her finest performance.

Young, whose last job was chief of staff to six-term Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he would support a constitutional amendment to limit senators’ terms. But, he said, Iowa’s senators should not put themselves at a disadvantage for leadership positions, such as committee chairmanships, that come with seniority.

“I don’t want to disarm Iowa and my state,” he said. “Seniority is effective, and I think Senator Grassley has shown great use of seniority for Iowa.”

Young knows any senator who is automatically a lame duck on day one of a second term would have a very hard time getting anything done. Not only are leadership roles out of reach, but effective and experienced staff would be quickly out the door.

A constitutional limit would avoid putting Iowa at a disadvantage, but it’s not necessarily a good idea. The federal government is so gigantic and complex, it takes time to develop proficiency, let alone expertise. A two- or three-term limit shifts too much power to the bureaucracy, which has far more continuity than either the president or members of Congress.

That’s not to say voters should automatically re-elect first- or second-term incumbents. Six or 12 years is plenty of time to judge a candidate’s voting record, initiative and conduct. But just like in any job, responsibility and skill grow with time.

Young gave the better answer policywise, but perhaps not politically. The idea of “career politicians” is particularly offensive to the tea party wing of the Republican Party. People of both parties recognize the political system is rigged to protect incumbents. Talk of term limits eases fears that the Washington culture tends to corrupt even the most independent-minded elected official over time.

Instead of making ill-advised and probably meaningless term-limit promises, Senate candidates should focus on other ways to deal with the power of the incumbency and the influence of special interests. If we’re going to amend the Constitution, campaign finance reform would be a better target than term limits. Voter engagement is a stronger disinfectant for an entrenched political class than taking away the people’s choice to re-elect an effective senator.

If they’re serious about remaining accountable to voters, Senate candidates could follow former U.S. Rep. Jim Leach’s example. He refused to take PAC money. Instead, he relied on individual contributions. Ultimately, it gave a competitor — current Rep. David Loebsack — a chance to send him home.